I like to think of myself as a strong, sexy woman, but recently, certain events, especially concerning how I feel about the portrayal of women in video games, have made me question just how progressive I am. I need to know: is it sexist to enjoy sexy women? Is it sexist of me to rather...enjoy the feminine form? Is it wrong of me to worship Tiamat and Ishtar for their strong, sexy kickass nature? Am I just...being a fool? I know I can be a foolish one; it's not just cause I'm a nymphomaniac that I feel a connection to Ishtar, after all.

Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

There's an argument that because potentially the last 200000 years of modern human existence has framed male/female relationships in this property/protection dynamic that all such relationships, no matter how much the partners want it to be, can not be equal. This sort of idea has influenced everything from political lesbianism to that weird pink car anime thing. And to be honest, I'm not inclined to disagree with it. But the way love was redefined from an agreement of protection and child bearing to a mutual feeling in the Victorian Era I think legitimizes attempts at an equitable relationship between a male and female.

Of course, you're lesbian. That's mu to everything but the Brennan types, and they're prejudices and fears are statistically baseless. You're not this person https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Robert_Wayne_Stiles , whom I've actually spoken to, whose ed article is actually more accurate than not because he's just that crazy stupid.

No arguments tend to be third wave feminism, the feminism of the 90's, of slutwalks, of intersectionality (where basically black female experiences ≠ white female experiences, even if only looking at the experiences with womanhood). Third wave feminism was specifically an agnostic reaction to second wave feminism, the feminism of the 60s, 70s, 80s, that argued that nearly all forms of sexuality between men and women involved symbolic and normalizing violence against the latter, that took hard stances against porn, objectification, etc. (tumblrfeminism popular with Sarko types could either be argued as either somewhat naïve 3rd wave-ism or a resurgence of the 2nd wave - a 4th wave. I side with the 4th wave idea).

*Storytelling in games frankly sucks. There's no real pressure to make good stories - frankly, if you go through the discount bin there's barely a focus on good games. Because of this, most video game protags have issues.

*There's still a relative lack of decent female protags for young girls, in the vein of a link or mario. When there are female protagonists, they tend to be pink and vapid or sexualized in ways that aren't appropriate or relatible. That said, rarity doesn't mean zero - Samus for example.

*A lot of stories are deeply problematic but old and tried. They're inheritance from more rigidly sexist times, or come from a culture that is still rigidly sexist. In one particular trope - there's some pressure towards making the damsels in distress (a trope that some critics think encourages perpetual victimhood because of what the fantasy from a female perspective requires) more a figure in their own rescue (e.g. Zelda in Spirit Tracks, Peach in the Thousand Year Door) but the main pressure is on getting the product out the door by sell date, not on gameplay much less on writing; it's also notable that people just generally don't run with the reversed scenario ever.

*A lot of features of the male protagonist reinforce negative aspects of being a male - machoism encourages blatant sociopathy. American Individualism - randian sociopathy - is intrinsically intertwined in these things. Not all games feature this kind of male character though. There's also problems with expectations; they way storytelling interacts with a lot of guys is to set them up to have expectations for themselves that they can never meet. There's other stuff too.

*Some games are actively lampooning stupid attitudes - GTA comes to mind. Hate towards these games is to misunderstand these games, I think.

*There's also a culture of gamerbroism that's basically frathouse sexism drunk and lost. This has always been part of the market, and this demographic having been played up is why this market has its legacy. It really set everything up to fail even in subtle ways. Remember CAD? Screwattack (at least back in the day) much? It should be noted that there was always a reaction against it, the reaction just wasn't... strong enough to signal to dipshits that this isn't a safezone for dipshittery.

*As far as characters who look good/wear shit that's completely unbelievable as armor - it really depends on who to what audience. In simple narratives sexuality gets associated with good and evil; and sometimes this can be problematic (sex is not good nor evil, it's mu) especially if it's not integral to the story. It also has problems in straining disbelief. And sometimes even it can just be annoyingly distracting - like, Shantae's good in almost every other regard but it could do with toning itself down frankly. For games targeted to adults, trying to pull it off in some games just fails horribly because they're not able to focus on the storyline, and the character ends up being a waste of space. But there are times when it really doesn't matter.

Unfortunately the fact that I gravitate...into specific areas shows. What I tend to play are nintendo games for the most part, and they really don't have the kinds of problems other games have, though occasionally very "this is the bad side of japan" feelings sneak in like Birdo or Dawn wearing miniskirts.

Part of it's just a general issue with storytelling - this low level psychological cultural warfare is more tied to that, and expresses itself in movies and videogames and so on, not intrisically part of the latter. That said harassing the critics, especially when they're not advocating taking things away like say Jack Thompson, is the kind of reason sex+ third wavers and antifeminists don't get taken seriously either.

As for you - do you advocate one lifestyle for everyone? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to make criticisms of things you like? Do you think there's significant intrinsic differences in abilities in men and women that go beyond (~secondary)reproductive, skeletal, or muscular anatomy? Do you advocate reinforcing gender constructs (even when they're just tied to divisions of labor)? No? I wouldn't sweat it.

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:No arguments tend to be third wave feminism, the feminism of the 90's, of slutwalks, of intersectionality (where basically black female experiences ≠ white female experiences, even if only looking at the experiences with womanhood). Third wave feminism was specifically an agnostic reaction to second wave feminism, the feminism of the 60s, 70s, 80s, that argued that nearly all forms of sexuality between men and women involved symbolic and normalizing violence against the latter, that took hard stances against porn, objectification, etc. (tumblrfeminism popular with Sarko types could either be argued as either somewhat naïve 3rd wave-ism or a resurgence of the 2nd wave - a 4th wave. I side with the 4th wave idea).

Huh? What do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that I'm being naive? Or that my arguments are rare? Or are they foolish?

I don't know, I still think sex is a good thing, not evil *or* neutral/mu.

edit. what i mean is third wave is fine, I typoed. I'm not a fourth waver but i think post internet feminism is different from the third wave. fourth wave is fine whatever, but the tumblr brand specifically is naïve and embarrassing to all feminism.

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

I don't really have an opinion on whether you are. I could see why some people might think you are but I can also tell that you really don't mean any harm by it either. I'm not the best judge of sexism though because I kinda have a bit of an unconscious bias against men due to the men who have been in my life for most of it. (I still subconsciously avoid dealing with my current stepfather far too often even when I completely don't mean to. He's actually a pretty good guy so I feel bad about it but I tend not to even notice I've done it until it's too late.)

Also rather than making full threads for stuff like this, you should consider just asking in the general chat thread instead. Might get a few more responses that way from people who otherwise wouldn't notice your thread plus neither thread is terribly active anyways.

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters

Is this really normal even now?

or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

Technically the feminist side isn't for violence against men. Only some really loud extremists are. If you go for how things have always been (at least in video games) then violence against men is kinda the norm simply since most characters have a habit of being male. Irl violence against men has been more acceptable from the mistaken notion that since they're bigger and stronger they can take it just fine. (Ignoring the fact that such violence has a far more emotionally scarring effect than physical.)

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters

Is this really normal even now?

or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

Technically the feminist side isn't for violence against men. Only some really loud extremists are. If you go for how things have always been (at least in video games) then violence against men is kinda the norm simply since most characters have a habit of being male. Irl violence against men has been more acceptable from the mistaken notion that since they're bigger and stronger they can take it just fine. (Ignoring the fact that such violence has a far more emotionally scarring effect than physical.)

Maybe truth? in Sozi-Commie-Monkey Paradise Franch our furry li'l pony friend here might see exotic new mores (also France had first dibs on anime so they've known the tentacles longer) more than we do here in inyebred murcan fuckwheristan. I mean, Portland straddles the line a bissel about its fuckwheristan status but the rest of Orygun shure don't

sorry

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Also quickly adding how telling it is that I interpret "am I sexist" to mean "am I feminist"

i live in the realm of theories and ideologies

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Maybe truth? in Sozi-Commie-Monkey Paradise Franch our furry li'l pony friend here might see exotic new mores (also France had first dibs on anime so they've known the tentacles longer) more than we do here in inyebred murcan fuckwheristan. I mean, Portland straddles the line a bissel about its fuckwheristan status but the rest of Orygun shure don't

sorry

I honestly have no idea what you're actually saying here. I really can't parse any of it.

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Also quickly adding how telling it is that I interpret "am I sexist" to mean "am I feminist"

Depends on whether you see feminism as the vocal extremist morons or the actual feminists. Actual feminists want equality. The vocal extremists want superiority. Despite the latter claiming to be for equality, they're a totally different thing. More of a parasite on the real thing that does nothing but harm feminism.

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Maybe truth? in Sozi-Commie-Monkey Paradise Franch our furry li'l pony friend here might see exotic new mores (also France had first dibs on anime so they've known the tentacles longer) more than we do here in inyebred murcan fuckwheristan. I mean, Portland straddles the line a bissel about its fuckwheristan status but the rest of Orygun shure don't

sorry

I honestly have no idea what you're actually saying here. I really can't parse any of it.

Making fun of Saru for being from France because... I'm a wasp sine p, idk... and his mlpness, while making fun of america as being... backwater I guess... while suggesting that maybe he encounters crazy dworkin types more often than we do because he lives a more enlightened environment, or at least one that's less hostile to the dworkins than our country.

Depends on whether you see feminism as the vocal extremist morons or the actual feminists. Actual feminists want equality. The vocal extremists want superiority. Despite the latter claiming to be for equality, they're a totally different thing. More of a parasite on the real thing that does nothing but harm feminism.

I started off the twatter thread over here with a giant stupid break our skulls open together stupid nonsense fight with saru about gamergate silliness, me taking the antigg side. I know. Saru knows too. It's just that it's the kinda petty bs where if you're anti-gg that makes you pro-sarko/wu/sarah/quinn/chu/randi and antisargon/chobitcoin/nrx/whatever or if you're pro-gg that makes you antiwu/sarko/sarah/chu/randi and prosargon/cho/whatever

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters

Is this really normal even now?

To the people who would claim that enjoying scantily clad women is sexist, it very much is. Third wave feminists are shotas.

Alice wrote:

Sarusig wrote:or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

Technically the feminist side isn't for violence against men. Only some really loud extremists are. If you go for how things have always been (at least in video games) then violence against men is kinda the norm simply since most characters have a habit of being male. Irl violence against men has been more acceptable from the mistaken notion that since they're bigger and stronger they can take it just fine. (Ignoring the fact that such violence has a far more emotionally scarring effect than physical.)

Ah yes but it used to be a passive thing. Now it's actively sought for. It's the glorious era in which we must laugh on TV about guys having their dicks chopped off by their crazy partners (don't put yo dick in crazy, kids) because it's justice. And no one cares.

Alice wrote:I don't really have an opinion on whether you are. I could see why some people might think you are but I can also tell that you really don't mean any harm by it either. I'm not the best judge of sexism though because I kinda have a bit of an unconscious bias against men due to the men who have been in my life for most of it. (I still subconsciously avoid dealing with my current stepfather far too often even when I completely don't mean to. He's actually a pretty good guy so I feel bad about it but I tend not to even notice I've done it until it's too late.)

Also rather than making full threads for stuff like this, you should consider just asking in the general chat thread instead. Might get a few more responses that way from people who otherwise wouldn't notice your thread plus neither thread is terribly active anyways.

Yeah, well, I prefer to make an actual thread for this because I'm kinda trying to get people's attention. I wasn't sure whether anyone would notice if it were buried in the other thread . Though I guess they would anyway.

Sarusig wrote:To the people who would claim that enjoying scantily clad women is sexist, it very much is. Third wave feminists are shotas.

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

And what do you mean by that?! That I'm an idiot?! That violence is acceptable but sexuality isn't ?! Or are you not taking this question seriously? Cause that's what it seems like.

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:*new argu...

edit. what i mean is third wave is fine, I typoed. I'm not a fourth waver but i think post internet feminism is different from the third wave. fourth wave is fine whatever, but the tumblr brand specifically is naïve and embarrassing to all feminism.

Sarusig wrote:Ah yes but it used to be a passive thing. Now it's actively sought for. It's the glorious era in which we must laugh on TV about guys having their dicks chopped off by their crazy partners (don't put yo dick in crazy, kids) because it's justice. And no one cares.

I'm really not following you. It's only actively sought by vocal extremists. An extremely small part of the whole. And one that has held those moronic sentiments for decades.

EarthPhantomTS wrote:Yeah, well, I prefer to make an actual thread for this because I'm kinda trying to get people's attention. I wasn't sure whether anyone would notice if it were buried in the other thread . Though I guess they would anyway.

I think more people would miss it actually. I personally didn't notice there was a new thread until my second or third visit to the site today since it was in the same forum as the general chat thread where everyone posts. It fits fine with a separate thread but with how inactive the forums tend to be that discourages people from noticing it more than encouraging them to notice it.

Sarusig wrote:To the people who would claim that enjoying scantily clad women is sexist, it very much is. Third wave feminists are shotas.

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

And what do you mean by that?! That I'm an idiot?! That violence is acceptable but sexuality isn't ?! Or are you not taking this question seriously? Cause that's what it seems like.

Sarusig wrote:To the people who would claim that enjoying scantily clad women is sexist, it very much is. Third wave feminists are shotas.

Sarusig wrote:Jeez, can't you have normal, acceptable interests for the modern internet society? Like underaged characters or violence towards males? That's all the rage these days, and no one would blame you for that.

And what do you mean by that?! That I'm an idiot?! That violence is acceptable but sexuality isn't ?! Or are you not taking this question seriously? Cause that's what it seems like.

I like to think of myself as a strong, sexy woman, but recently, certain events, especially concerning how I feel about the portrayal of women in video games, have made me question just how progressive I am.

Progressive != good/moral/rationalStriving for something like progressiveness for the sole reason of being... well, progressive, is a pretty shortsighted and silly thing to do. Not saying you're doing that, but it's a trap some people fall into when dealing with ideologies.

EarthPhantomTS wrote:I need to know: is it sexist to enjoy sexy women? Is it sexist of me to rather...enjoy the feminine form? Is it wrong of me to worship Tiamat and Ishtar for their strong, sexy kickass nature?

Depends on who you ask, really. Tumblr feminists tend to have a very unclear and seemingly random distinction between "okay sexiness" (a.k.a. empowering female sexuality) and "sexist scumbag shit" (a.k.a. serving male interests). There's no real clean lines here, and pressing them further on the subject usually leads them into conflicting arguments (i.e. how Sarkeesian both denounces the "man with boobs" trope and at the same time asks for more anti-stereotypical female characters – yes, those are two different things, but that difference is completely dependent on subjective analysis of the character, making it a really bad measure of "sexism in video games", whatever that's supposed to mean).

My stance is this: Wanna make a sexy character for the sake of having a sexy character that appeals to a certain audience? Go ahead. It's lazy design and not too surprising, but it's not morally reprehensible or sexist or whatever. Even in stupid shit like Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball Training or whatever that game is called, where every player is a scantily-clad girl playing beach volley while constantly making noises like they're about to have an orgasm, it's just lazy design, not some kind of under- or overlying message about how "all females are (supposed to be) like this". That message is neither intended by the developers nor received as such by the audience, because noone (in their right mind) takes a game about DoA girls playing beach volleyball in the tiniest swimsuits imagineable seriously. All studies on how ~video games influence people to be more aggressive/sexist/etc.~ have been either very short-term, measuring only the immediate effects that those games have on people (and, YES OF COURSE, playing adrenaline-pushing games for 3 hours will make you quicker to see random things as threats or see other people in a negative light, but all of those are extremely short-term effects), or show very minor and/or inconclusive changes in long-term behaviour. In fact, there's actually been a recent german study that showed the opposite effect taking place, where playing more games causes you to become less sexist.

The fact situation is currently so inconclusive that what tumblr-style feminists are saying about video games right now is just ridiculous, and where they fail with arguments, they instead employ scare tactics, such as making people afraid of being sexist/racist/homophobic, you name it. This has been a problem for quite a while now on Tumblr and related sites, where people get pressured into "cutting friends out of their lives" because of their "problematic" behaviour. In some cases, they don't even need direct pressure, as their arguments are basically

[Long explanation of some circumstance] <- That's sexist! Don't do it because sexist things are baaaaaad!

It's a conclusion noone can disagree with, but the argument leading up to it – more often than not - isn't completely sound, and often riddled with holes or hidden assumptions. Reading Simone de Beauvoir's "The second sex" was really eye-opening to me because it employs somewhat of a similar scheme except from waaay before the time of tumblr (tm) and uses the same kind of "argument of posterity" where something that people in the past have done (or she thinks have done, without giving any citations) needs to be atoned for by the people living right now.

tl;dr What Tovarish said – you're not sexist as long as you believe men and women should have the same rights and duties (resonable limitations apply)

Fake-Edit: (I say reasonable limitations apply because if I don't, people will start complaining about male applicants being turned down on their application to work for Hooters)

It's not necessary to be a woman to be sexy, just that the connotation between man and sexiness is different than woman and sexiness. Appreciating a character, regardless of gender, for his/her sexiness (or any other quality relative to attractiveness), is really common. It's not sexist at all.

...ignoring the majority of the responses in this thread, because most of them are kind of Garbage...

...I wouldn't say you're sexist. this is why

you wrote:I like to think of myself as a strong, sexy woman

if you were some boy i think you would be a lot more creepy. however. that is not the case...? obviously, ladies can still have self-prejudice but this is not an example of it

i also think you kind of go so far with it that its too ridiculous to be considered offensive in that way. also, you never say anything demeaning regarding the things you find attractive, so thats another point for you (a common trait in actual sexist people is to speak poorly of the people they find attractive...)

im sorry that it seems very few people in this thread wanted to actually answer you, instead going off-topic and confusing you :[

i think it is possible to recognize problems in things even if they are enjoyable. i.e. "i find this attractive, but i recognize that its reason for existing is representative of sexism", i know that fanservice games like Senran Kagura have their good share of female fans and even male fans who know that, yknow, this aint a progressive series, but they still have fun with it while simultaneously recognizing the problems

uh i went off-topic, anyway, its always good to be self-analytical but dont let it hurt you too much

Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

Leet wrote:...ignoring the majority of the responses in this thread, because most of them are kind of Garbage...

...I wouldn't say you're sexist. this is why

you wrote:I like to think of myself as a strong, sexy woman

if you were some boy i think you would be a lot more creepy. however. that is not the case...? obviously, ladies can still have self-prejudice but this is not an example of it

You could at least try to pretend that's not a blatant double-standard but it's pretty impossible when it's exactly that.

OP isn't sexist because a bunch of shitheads decided to start slut-shaming video game characters and trying to get them to dress more conservatively like a fucking 1930's husband in the name of "progression". You can like whatever you want to like, regardless of your gender.

ah yes, the slut-shaming of video game characters.... video game characters designed by males...... video game characters whose choice of clothing is decided by males.... video game characters.... fictional characters... who dont make their own choices.... because they are /fictional/, did you know? a female character designed by a male wearing very little /is not the same/ as an actual, real woman making their own choice of clothing

are you for fucking real ashan

(addendum: unless the video game characters were designed by females, of course. that doesn't happen very much (I WONDER WHY!!!!), but when it does, no problem there)

Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Okay, I'm legitimately interested, leet. Why do you think Earthphantom's opinion on sexy women in gaming would be more creepy if she was a boy? Or, maybe even the more basic question: Why is it creepy when boys find sexy women in gaming attractive?

I'm curious because I don't see any kind of reason to 1) Correlate gender with creepiness level2) Assume that, even if there was a majority correlation in 1), whoever likes sexy women does so because he actually dislikes female independency and self-determiniation

It seems to me that, in order to assume 1), you have to assume the oddly warped conception of sexism as an institutional hierarchy where the perpetrators can only be those who are in a more privileged position than their victims. Which would then bring me to the question why that definition of "sexism" (or "racism", if I'd wanted to roll back to a year-old discussion) should be any more accurate than the common one, which leaves out the power hierarchy thing and is just defined as "discrimination based on gender".

Furthermore, in order to assume 2), you either have to have a mindset of "If these criteria apply to most people of this group, then it's okay to assume it applies to all of them" or you need to think that it's literally impossible for the person in question to think differently. Which - at least I hope - nobody actually does, although I've seen examples going that direction before (Suey Park would be one).

Leet wrote:because when you sexualize a group that you are not of, theres an obvious difference compared to sexualizing a group you are of

Yes, but that's kinda what you said already. I'm asking exactly why the personal situation of the speaking subject should be of any consideration when you try to interpret their intention. If we have two individuals, one male and one female, who utter the same sentence - something like "Whoa, that character's sexy!" - I don't think that this sentence carries any different meaning in case A or case B. To say it does is to imply that there's some fundamental psychological difference between men and women that necessarily determines what they can think in the first place.

Leet wrote:because when you sexualize a group that you are not of, theres an obvious difference compared to sexualizing a group you are of

keep in mind that I wouldn't necessarily consider EarthPhantom to be sexist solely if their gender was different

it would be a lot more creepy, and i might think about it more, but its not an automatic on-off of my opinion

If I may interject, I have to agree with Aposke on this. It's a double-standard to say my thoughts are "more" okay since I'm a girl. Sexism against men is just as dumb as sexism against women. It's still sexism either way .

For that matter, females can also be sexist against females; just look at Phyllis Schlafly. So saying I'm not sexist just because I'm a girl is a complete non-sequitur.

Leet wrote:i think it is possible to recognize problems in things even if they are enjoyable. i.e. "i find this attractive, but i recognize that its reason for existing is representative of sexism", i know that fanservice games like Senran Kagura have their good share of female fans and even male fans who know that, yknow, this aint a progressive series, but they still have fun with it while simultaneously recognizing the problems

uh i went off-topic, anyway, its always good to be self-analytical but dont let it hurt you too much

Essentially, liking something that's sexist doesn't make a person sexist themselves, rather it's their beliefs and behaviour around the thought that it may be flawed in that fashion: do they defend/deny the oppressive elements, or do they accept its faults and recognize that it may not be the most exceptional thing out there? In simpler terms: are the person's beliefs sexist by themselves?

On the topic at hand, I don't believe that an oppressed group can't be oppressive themselves, as they can harbour the same attitudes as the perpetrators, and most often they internalize them unknowingly. On the other side of the spectrum, there can be people in the oppressive spaces who aren't necessarily oppressive themselves. Thus it's important not to assume what individuals think by the social group they may be categorized in. However, I won't deny that it may be more likely for people from certain groups to be oppressive than people from other groups, and some people may not want to take the risk to find the exceptions when a few missteps can do a lot of damage. Don't quote me on this but I feel like that's where Leet was coming from with her arguments. If in a bundle of apples a majority are bad, it's natural for a person to be more cautious than if only a few of them are bad.

I hope I conveyed that well, and that I'm not putting words in people's mouths here.

Leet wrote:because when you sexualize a group that you are not of, theres an obvious difference compared to sexualizing a group you are of

Yes, but that's kinda what you said already. I'm asking exactly why the personal situation of the speaking subject should be of any consideration when you try to interpret their intention. If we have two individuals, one male and one female, who utter the same sentence - something like "Whoa, that character's sexy!" - I don't think that this sentence carries any different meaning in case A or case B. To say it does is to imply that there's some fundamental psychological difference between men and women that necessarily determines what they can think in the first place.

My point isn't just that it's a girl saying it, it's that it's a girl saying it about a girl.

When something can be applied to oneself, it is no longer a judgement of the other. When something's a judgement of the other, it holds different implications. A white person saying "asians are so attractive" sounds like they are fetishizing a race - an asian person saying the same is empowering their own race.

Once more, these are not absolutes, but it's certailny more suspicious in some cases than others.

When you get down to it though, I'm not judging anything in a mechanical way - I'm just giving my impression and opinion. And trying to explain why I think these things. I'm not saying "This person isn't sexist because [x]", I'm saying "I don't see this person as sexist, and these are possible reasons why".

Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

Leet wrote:because when you sexualize a group that you are not of, theres an obvious difference compared to sexualizing a group you are of

Yes, but that's kinda what you said already. I'm asking exactly why the personal situation of the speaking subject should be of any consideration when you try to interpret their intention. If we have two individuals, one male and one female, who utter the same sentence - something like "Whoa, that character's sexy!" - I don't think that this sentence carries any different meaning in case A or case B. To say it does is to imply that there's some fundamental psychological difference between men and women that necessarily determines what they can think in the first place.

My point isn't just that it's a girl saying it, it's that it's a girl saying it about a girl.

When something can be applied to oneself, it is no longer a judgement of the other. When something's a judgement of the other, it holds different implications. A white person saying "asians are so attractive" sounds like they are fetishizing a race - an asian person saying the same is empowering their own race.

[...]I'm just giving my impression and opinion. And trying to explain why I think these things. I'm not saying "This person isn't sexist because [x]", I'm saying "I don't see this person as sexist, and these are possible reasons why".

I think you're giving too much weight to the listener's interpretation of the sentence's meaning. Different listeners will have different interpretations of what "Asians are so attractive" sounds like, and it is precisely because of this that looking at an individual receiver's interpretation of that sentence won't make the meaning of the sentence any clearer. Sure, if you see it as a fetishizing statement, you have every right to, but from the position you're taking you can't argue any better for your case than someone who says it's just an offhand remark without further reaching intentions.

The only way one of those interpretations could be shown to be more correct would be trying to find out the speaker's intention, which, I believe, can be completely detached from their heritage, race, and so on. Basing your interpretation of the sentence's meaning on factors like those doesn't do a person justice. It reduces them to what social/cultural group they're part of and ignores the fact that people can have different opinions regardless of their circumstances of existence.

On online forums like these, where we can be happy if we even get to figure out another person's gender, let alone their race/sexuality/etc., I don't think there's any case to be made for interpreting "I like sexy women in games" any differently whether it's a boy who says it or a girl.

Finally, concerning: "When something can be applied to oneself, it is no longer a judgement of the other. When something's a judgement of the other, it holds different implications."This is technically true, but again, doesn't help us much when trying to determine the meaning of a sentence. To pick up your example, a non-asian person saying "asians are so attractive" is not, in any way, determined to be "a fetishizing sentence", because, again, the actual, singular intended meaning (and yes, something like that exists) is with the speaker, not (reliably) with any of the listeners. Now, you might argue that being non-asian makes it remarkably more likely that this sentence was intended to fetishize asian people, but consider the following:If we asked any random person on the street about their opinion on what we're discussing right now, I guarantee that 8 or even 9 out of 10 people would not care. Chances are, something that you might consider "a fetishizing sentence" was not even meant to convey a concrete meaning outside of "I find asian people attractive", which, for most people, wouldn't really fulfill the requirements for being "a fetishizing sentence" (an example of a sentence that would might be "I'm not flying to Beijing to visit temples, you idiot, I'm only going for the hot girls"). Basically, I don't believe most people intend for their day-to-day sentences to have as many far reaching implications as can be interpreted into them. I think, to a degree, this is what confused EarthPhantom as well – the fact that, for some kind of physiochemical reason, she just likes seeing scantily clad women in media, a feeling that's hard to put into words and even harder (perhaps impossible) to find a reasonable explanation for. And then, she's met with people who effectively tell her that she shouldn't have those feelings, because they are "sexist" or "derogate women". A lot of narrative like that builds upon the assumptions that feelings, presuppositions like that, directly further sexist behaviour, which reminds me of the arguments trying to frame Counter Strike players as the next spree killers. The only studies that suggest such a correlation look at the immediate effects of such games upon the psyche and neglect the long-term studies that have been done on general games (as well as explicitly violent ones), especially when not talking about children.

lol Aposke, go look up the difference between cross-sectional studies and longitudinal ones and come back. Learn some science and read the field before you start to comment on it in anything resembling an authoritative way.

Cross-sectional studies can, and often do, look at long term effects, but they gather the data over a different period of time than longitudinal studies. It's a methodological difference. If you, for example, look at veterans and ask them how long they've served and correlate it to prevelance of PTSD diagnosis, you could use a cross-sectional study to look at the long term effect of war. Not the "immediate effect" of war. Longitudinal studies are "long-term" in their data collection model, not always their topic (in fact, some longitudinal studies look specifically at "immediate effects" over time)! It's pretty telling on your scientific literacy that you thought otherwise. You clearly haven't read the field, particularly recent scholarship, if you think the scientific consensus (91% of studies on the topic of video games and misogyny) is formulated entirely on studies that only test immediate effect.

That looked at long term effects and came to the same consensus as all the others you specifically write off so casually. Not brand new either - it was published before the one you cited! Though this was conspicuously ignored in favour of a quasi-minority opinion study that found in favour of your political opinion by looking at games as an art form, rather than misogynistic games specifically (and even recommends further longitudinal research on specific forms of misogynistic content on specific misogynistic responses - it never claims that it disproves the entire rest of the field as you seem to think it does!).

Hm... I look forward to you finding one small thing about this study and using it as an excuse to explain why this one doesn't count!

No, no, this actually is helping. I can safely say Horikawa helped me out a fair bit, as it happens (I can't say how since it was in PMs, but she did ). Aposke too is being helpful, despite their disagreements.

ah yes, the slut-shaming of video game characters.... video game characters designed by males...... video game characters whose choice of clothing is decided by males.... video game characters.... fictional characters... who dont make their own choices.... because they are /fictional/, did you know? a female character designed by a male wearing very little /is not the same/ as an actual, real woman making their own choice of clothing

are you for fucking real ashan

(addendum: unless the video game characters were designed by females, of course. that doesn't happen very much (I WONDER WHY!!!!), but when it does, no problem there)

Yeah let's just police art, tell people what they are and aren't allowed to make. Men aren't allowed to have sexualized women in their creative pieces cause a bunch of talentless fuckheads that aren't good enough to make their own art are going to tell the artists what they're doing isn't allowed instead of trying to make something that they think is good.

Why the hell does the creator have to be considered??? It's the exact same end piece! As far as the video game is concerned, the developers are just a list of names at the end of the game. Their backgrounds have nothing to do with whether or not the end product is okay.What if, I don't know, that Dead or Alive beach volleyball game just spawned into existence? There were no developers, it was just there all of a sudden. Is it still offensive?When things are wrong, they're wrong for what they are. Not because of who did it. I know you think segregating everybody based on their gender or color of their skin is somehow promoting equality but it's not.

Ashan wrote:Yeah let's just police art, tell people what they are and aren't allowed to make.

literally nobody does this, the rest of your post is invalid

staying on point with what you had said in the first place instead of engaging in any other bullshit - i would respond more in depth pointing out how disturbing it is that you equate a fictional character created by men to a real woman, but i dont really feel the need to waste my time on anybody who reacts this ignorantly to art criticism

"so i think this book's pacing was a little poor" "um dont police art sweaty uwu people can make whatever they want"

how come when criticism has to do with serious things that have relevence in our society instead of graphical quality or whatever the fuck, everyone turns into babies over it? gee i wonder. i wonder why.

Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

But when it comes to these debates I sometimes feel like psychology is trying to contradict principles linguistics has long since reached an empirically supported consensus over. A lack of concordance happens sometimes, I mean, and in principle it's okay, but as someone who's more of a linguist than anything it's safer for me to accept their consensus.

Basically the linguistic consensus is - language doesn't shape our thought, our thought shapes language. And that goes down to idiolect (individual speech patterns). People are sloppy because they're operating in real time, with relative degrees of everything from aphasia to idiosyncratic teachers. They use nebulous ideas when it's useful to them. They rarely say what they mean, and while everything can be translated there's rarely if ever a one-to-one correspondence between lexemes. More to the point we fetishize language in a way that's unique to every individual, trends in populations due to cultural influences notwithstanding. But the simple fact is language doesn't shape our thought, our thought shapes language - you can teach base 10 math to languages with base 6 systems just as you can teach base 6 math to English speakers; one might say "we lack a particular word equivalent to пошлость" except actually we can translate cleanly to banal pettiness, we're missing the centuries of Russian literature shaping the word's use yes but we know the idea. But above all and in particular - words don't have meanings, they have usages. And that's why you'll see things like German happiness Glück being cognate to our luck (actually, Glück still means luck too), Grm thus/well also being cognate to our also, Grm general word for dog Hund being cognate to our specific word for a hunting dog hound, etc. Or Japanese アルバイト meaning part-time job, when in the source language, Grm. Arbeit means full-time job and Job (~dzhawp, /dʒɔp/) means part time Job. Then there's things like Affe (cognate to ape) being equivalent to all non-human haplorhini, meaning the arguments about the (actually false) distinction between monkeys and apes doesn't happen in German because they aren't using the one word equivalent to both that way. People generally don't go around with definitions in their head, which is why something like http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalist_taboo can be so useful.

Still the listener has a right to be offended if the wording imparts something offensive to them. There isn't a significant impact of language on thought empirically (you can translate anything even if the words don't have neat equivalents) so if they're offended because of that they have a false belief, but it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to be offended or stake their case. But the speaker should never be assumed to be acting intently.

If I had to give my views... if someone isn't showing other signs of being an asshole and just accidentally loaded their speech a certain way, they shouldn't be described with a word that most people use to imply intentional habitual behavior.

And as for the sex wars in particular... I'm not sex worker exclusionary, I think of myself as sex-positive. But I agree sexual violence isn't given the weight it deserves and I think the recent uptick in self-identifying antifeminism is misplaced at best. Microaggressions - merely perceived or intentional - also add up in either way, and it's healthiest for an individual if they get balanced feedback. I also think there's a little bit of perspective issue as well - maybe it's just anecdote but it seems like guys have on average lower esteem/more negative feedback and overestimate the positivity of acts they fundamentally wish would happen to them while underestimating the negative associations the speaker listener might have. And vice-versa.

I just think fighting language has been a waste of time, and that going after broad pan-cultural trends would be better focus on attacking the intently sexist and entitled aspect of "gamerism" - the fratboy subculture that manifested minutely in say Tim Buckley and his fanbase - and convincing developers of demographic changes. Moreso, identity politics has taken hold with many gamers even though gamer is extremely broad and irrespective of beliefs and it should be shown that gamers don't really form a synthesis in a hegelian sense with any common goals like women or African Americans or homosexuals or transfolk do. Same thing with atheism - that's why A+ is as important as reddit in the grand scheme of things. Telling people they aren't gamers won't do and neither will writing off gamers as part of an outgroup - stead show the diversity of gaming using yourselves. Ourselves.

People aren't intentional, and should be forgiven generally. It doesn't mean people shouldn't be mindful of what they say, however. But things aren't happening out of malevolence or entitlement for the most part, although it does exist and needs to be wiped out with stigmatization and shaming.

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?<tovakj> yes<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

Leet wrote:target is not even a video game store so i do not see why this matters where there are numerous other, more fitting places to purchase a single (rather average/conventional/bland) game

That's not the point, nobody is mad about it because "GTA5 is now inaccessible to Australians" or something, cause it's clearly not.It's that a bunch of idiots who have never played the game deemed to too offensive, painted it as something it's not, whined to Target, and got it pulled. The act of Target going out of their way to stop selling it is basically making a public statement that GTA5 is too offensive to sell in their store. It's censorship.

I'm saying this as a person who's never played GTA and doesn't have much interest. Censoring video games from the public is stupid. The boxart sitting behind a glass cabinet is not hurting anyone that doesn't have interest in playing the game. Let people who want to play it have it easily accessible to them, instead of trying to make them think they should feel bad for enjoying a video game that someone else doesn't.

Yeah but Target made the decision to listen on their own. Nobody forced them to do that. They were pursuaded when they saw a lot of people thought this way. Good decision or otherwise, nobody was forced to do anything. A store has the right to stock what they choose - in this case, based on what they think their customers want. Evidentially, they found evidence that showed that a lot of customers did not want this. Again, whether that's an accurate evaluation of the situation or not on their part, this is all ultimately Target's choice.

Perhaps get over yourself? Gamers get so angry over the most trivial garbage

Genie wrote:No one is innocent so Karma doesn’t care who it kills. It strikes out randomly assured it destroys a sinner.

Leet wrote:target is not even a video game store so i do not see why this matters where there are numerous other, more fitting places to purchase a single (rather average/conventional/bland) game

That's not the point, nobody is mad about it because "GTA5 is now inaccessible to Australians" or something, cause it's clearly not.It's that a bunch of idiots who have never played the game deemed to too offensive, painted it as something it's not, whined to Target, and got it pulled. The act of Target going out of their way to stop selling it is basically making a public statement that GTA5 is too offensive to sell in their store. It's censorship.

I'm saying this as a person who's never played GTA and doesn't have much interest. Censoring video games from the public is stupid. The boxart sitting behind a glass cabinet is not hurting anyone that doesn't have interest in playing the game. Let people who want to play it have it easily accessible to them, instead of trying to make them think they should feel bad for enjoying a video game that someone else doesn't.

Leet wrote:Yeah but Target made the decision to listen on their own. Nobody forced them to do that. They were pursuaded when they saw a lot of people thought this way. Good decision or otherwise, nobody was forced to do anything. A store has the right to stock what they choose - in this case, based on what they think their customers want. Evidentially, they found evidence that showed that a lot of customers did not want this. Again, whether that's an accurate evaluation of the situation or not on their part, this is all ultimately Target's choice.

Perhaps get over yourself? Gamers get so angry over the most trivial garbage

Okay, seriously, can both of you just calm down and stop arguing? I'd rather not see a fight break out in my thread !